Allowed

Ummer v. District Collector

Kerala HC14 Dec 2016WP(C)/15344/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged illegal quarrying by the fourth respondent. The High Court held that quarrying cannot occur without an Environmental Clearance under the EIA Notification of 2006. The petition was allowed to restrain the respondent from operating without required licenses and clearances.

What did the court decide?

Restraining the fourth respondent from conducting any quarrying operations without obtaining an Environmental Clearance under the EIA Notification of 2006.

Ummer Vs District Collector — Mining and Natural Resources | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 15344 of 2014 (P)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. UMMER, PADICKALPARAMPIL AMYUR, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD 679310.

¶8

2. ABOOBACKER SIDIQUE, KUNNUTHODI, AMAYUR, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD 699310.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BIPIN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

--------------.

¶12

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD 678001, DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD 678001.

¶13

2. THE TAHASILDAR,

¶14

PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD 679303.

¶15

3. THE KOPPAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECREARY, PULASSERI P.O, PALAKKAD 679307

¶16

4. MARKOSE, S/O GEROGE, MARAMKANDATHIL,NEYYASSERRY, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685581, MANAGING PARTNER GEOSONS, AGGREGATES, AMYUR, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD 679310.

¶17

R1-R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI K.J.MANURAJ R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR R4 BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

K.V.

¶20

WP(C).No. 15344 of 2014 (P)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND RESIDENTS OF THE LOCALITY TO THE IST

¶24

RESPONDENT DATED 22-07-2013.

¶25

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 26-03-2014

¶26

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 17-10-2007.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J

W.P(C) No. 15344 of 2014 P

¶34

¶35

Dated this the 14^th day of December, 2016

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

The above writ petition was filed against the

¶38

illegal quarrying carried on by the 4^th respondent. The learned Counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent submits

¶39

that there is no quarry or crusher now conducted therein by the 4^th respondent.

¶40

2.This Court has in Joseph Mathew v. State of

¶41

Kerala [2016 (3) KLT 102] held that the interim order of

¶42

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.30103 of 2015

¶43

granting status quo is of no consequence with respect to

¶44

the issuance of quarrying permit. The SLP was filed

¶45

WPC.No.15344/2014

¶46

: 2 :

¶47

against the judgment in All Kerala River Protection

¶48

Council v. State of Kerala [2015 (2) KLT 78], which has

¶49

also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The requirement for EC emanates from Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2012) 4 SCC 629] and has been incorporated in the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification No. 2006 (SO 1533EE) dated 14.09.20016 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change; by S.O No. 141 (E) dtd. 15.01.2016. Hence no quarrying can be carried out without an EC.

¶50

In such circumstance, the writ petition would

¶51

stand allowed, restraining the 4^th respondent from conducting any quarrying operations without EC under

¶52

the Environment Impact Assessment Notification of 2006

¶53

WPC.No.15344/2014

¶54

: 3 :

¶55

(S.O 1533 E) and without permit/licence/lease obtained under the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation ) Act, 1957 (for brevity, KMMDR Act) and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (for brevity KMMC Rules) as also a D& O licence under the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994.

¶56

The writ petition would stand allowed. No costs.

¶57

Sd/(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)

¶58

jma

¶59

//true copy//

¶60

P.A to Judge

Ummer v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ummer v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biji Vijayan Vs District Collector

Harid Vs Karunagappally Grama

A.J.Walston Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Kunjhimohammed Vs Thalikulam Grama Panchayath

Nawas.P.S Vs District Collector